 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
I, for one, welcome our new squidopus overlords.
That's funny - my wife called it a "squidopus" too. I think it has a better ring to it than octosquid... Hmoul 03:28, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Broken links! Anyone have any new/updated references for this article? Couple of the links are dead. Lodyof (talk) 01:03, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Scientific name
editAre they planning to give it a scientific name?–Sidious1701(talk • email • todo) 20:06, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Article Deletion?
editIs this article noteworthy? It isn't a new species it is just one example of a known species that was missing body parts. Hardly seems notable. It seems like sensationalist media jumping to conclusions before science can properly weigh in. There are many many cases of mistaken identity each day. Does each warrant a wikipedia page?Kirkmona (talk) 21:08, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- From what I understand there is a consensus that every extant species is inherenty notable. This article is about one such species, albeit undescribed. mgiganteus1 (talk) 01:20, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- Yes but this is NOT a new species. It was a silly case of mistaken identity. It was a known species that was missing tentacles so someone thought it was new. This is not a page about an undescribed known species, it is a page about someone's minor identification mistake. I would have no problem with a page on the known species but that doesn't seem to be that this page is about. Kirkmona (talk) 19:01, 18 November 2008 (UTC)